From: <HIDDEN>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Error in MIN and MAX
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 08:42:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <hu0ego$7go$>
References: <htrjji$34i$> <hts20o$vt$> 	<htt5bg$fli$> <httm7f$14t$> 	<httojr$f0t$> <> 	<htujp2$oh0$> <> 	<hu0abs$62n$> <hu0bht$f6f$> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="7Fjgbo+dxw6JaYE13eb5CA";
	logging-data="7704"; mail-complaints-to="";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18MY0d5JIK6sY2y8qM4McNQ"
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)
In-Reply-To: <HIDDEN>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C+KuJ9Gdm0fbC+WIoX2zXzqEqSw=
Xref: comp.soft-sys.matlab:640886

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 31 Mai, 14:52, dpb <> wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Because you said "if one comes from Fortran [...] it permissible..."
>>>> but without stating what language you ara discussing. You have worked
>>>> with fortran, I have not. Indicating that you could use these
>>>> techniques in any other language, wheras I can not.
>>>> It's a ridiculous statement, so I wonder if you really mean it.
>>> _WHAT_???  How else could one think of anything except Matlab as that
>>> was what the subject was about and simply a reference to a user who had
>>> Fortran experience?
>>> And, what statement is ridiculous in your view and why is it so?  I
>>> meant (and still mean) everything I said; there may be a
>>> misunderstanding here, I expect there is.
>> ...
>> OK, it dawned on me where the problem's in the snipping that's
>> the clue.
> No, it isn't. It's the statement. The whole excerpt:
>>> if one comes from Fortran (listening, Rune??? :) ) where
>>> function names and variable names are in different name spaces, it's
>>> perfectly permissible
> You assign the property to the programmer: "If one comes from
> fortran..." Somebody who have previous experience with fortran
> is permitted to whatever; somebody who does not have that
> experience ("does not come from fortran") are denied those
> permissions.
> You do *not* say that "In fortran it is permissible to..." which
> would make sense.

No, _again_ you judiciously snipped to make your context...

I said (w/o the aside) "if one comes from Fortran where...".  The 
"where" immediately follows Fortran so it is clearly referring to the 
language and simply it is that one has that as a background that is implied.

And, of course, even if one were to take your stretched connotation of 
it being the programmer, what, pray tell, would set the Fortran 
programmer apart from any other if it weren't the syntax rules of the 
language from whence his/her experience came?  Hence, the same 
conclusion must be drawn even under that parsing.

And, w/ that semantic nit-picking, I'm outta' here on this thread.

I would simply ask that you just hold the vitriol on Fortran though; it 
is clearly simply a visceral knee-jerk reaction you were taught at some 
point and has no bearing on the current language which you have stated 
you know nothing about.  There's no point in continuing a feud against a 
no-longer-pertinent 40-yr old target.

I only respond to set the record straight on what is current as opposed 
to the impression you try to leave that all FORTRAN must look like F66 
or perhaps some F77 as that simply is not true.